Exoteric and EsotericpanshivaDecember 9 2009, 04:35:36 UTC
In a world where exoteric religiosity is largely pinioned to political and economic interests and organized by default cultural values, why do you find any of this interesting?
I find exoteric religiosity (Christian, Islamic, Pagan, Buddhist or otherwise) patently boring.
Also, regaring "Interfaith Dialogue?" Once again, what's the point?
The moment "Interfaith Diaolgue" results in a group like the Vatican, or the powers in Mecca, or those who guard the Holy Mount kicking down some serious interest in the form of CASH, as well as political power to those they're "dialoguing" with, I'll pay a little more attention.
Otherwises this all strikes me as a bunch of feel good sympathetic nonsense. There is no "Skin in the Game" for this whole deal. It' just like the 3rd world talking to the G7. They pat the little brown people on the head, and go back to doing what they do best...Ruling.
The logic of slave and master is here clearly, and the slave always thinks the master is listening...even feels empowered briefly, but like I said, look to what really is being exchanged besides words.
Also, Gnosis negates the need of 99.9% of religious functionaries, authorities, codes, laws. The entire Reason D'etre for the "Parliament of World Religions" would largely cease to exist if we shifted from an exoteric to an esoteric focus.
Yes, I'm sure there are "esotericists" there, but the hardcore ones, the one's that really get it, probably not so much.
All this stuff perpetuates the distraction from the REAL.
Re: Exoteric and EsotericalfrechtDecember 9 2009, 04:50:40 UTC
But, is there some value in these events at least from the viewpoint of having part of the group of attendees realizing, "Hey, pagans aren't evil at all!" and the like? Or finding that there are people in the major religions that don't subscribe to some of the more virulent streams of discourse about other religions?
Having organized some interfaith (and intrafaith) events in my time, actually getting one another to the point of respect and true understanding, rather than agreement and anyone else "converting" to someone else's viewpoint, has always been the goal, and has been achieved on occasion (sometimes better than others, and some people more poignantly than others).
Not that your critique isn't valid, but I just wonder, does everyone have to be one particular way in order for the world to be a better place?
Re: Exoteric and EsotericpanshivaDecember 9 2009, 06:01:07 UTC
Why play that game? Why not inflate there fear instead of deflate it by trying to normalize yourself. It's the same game as pagans saying to Christians "don't worry were not satanists" which is reactive and the logic of a slave instead of taking the proactive position....let me introduce you to the real lucifer...the one that us all love and all light."
The point isn't about "Fear." The point is cultivating a largely repetoire of responses and not be afraid to take control of discourse and steer it down a path you decide.
I'm saying this because too often people that are subjugagted take a reactive position vis dominant groups to get them to understand their subjgation while they continue to be dominated/ostracized/subjugated/marginalized/ fill in the blank.
Re: Exoteric and EsotericalfrechtDecember 10 2009, 00:15:29 UTC
I didn't say anything about normalizing myself (or anyone else) in this process...I think it is possible to be true and authentic in this kind of interaction, and not falsifying or lying or deceiving, while still having a net reaction that would be one that doesn't involve them fearing me (or anyone else) as a result. Your example of "Let me introduce you to the real Lucifer" isn't particularly helpful in my own case, because I have had nothing to do with any being identifiable as Lucifer in any of my practices at this stage. That's not to say that there isn't anything in my practices that wouldn't raise an eyebrow or possibly cause others worry, but that's not really any different than when I talk with pagans and polytheists about what I do either.
I'm just not seeing the use of attempting to make people fear me (or anyone else); that seems like a very insecure position to me, when it is fully possible for another to respect me without fearing me. If I go into a situation in which I hope that others end up understanding me as a result of it, rather than going in and hoping they fear me, I've generally had better results; if they still want to fear me afterwards, even if they have understood me, then that's not my problem, but I honestly don't think that's happened very often.
Ecology of PowerpanshivaDecember 10 2009, 01:35:24 UTC
religions are memetic viruses that proliferate in an ecology of power. Getting someone with more social ecnomic or cultural capital to kick down some of their goods is as important as getting them to understand. The dialectic of harmony and strife conflict and cooperation revolution and realization...interfaith dialogue is a bourgesois trope. I'd rather see the blatant destruction if those who wield memetic power based on hypocrisy false consciousness and lies then them to understand me so we can all get along in some watered down false compromise. Some things are blatantly incompatible and amount dialogs will remove it.
I find exoteric religiosity (Christian, Islamic, Pagan, Buddhist or otherwise) patently boring.
Also, regaring "Interfaith Dialogue?" Once again, what's the point?
The moment "Interfaith Diaolgue" results in a group like the Vatican, or the powers in Mecca, or those who guard the Holy Mount kicking down some serious interest in the form of CASH, as well as political power to those they're "dialoguing" with, I'll pay a little more attention.
Otherwises this all strikes me as a bunch of feel good sympathetic nonsense. There is no "Skin in the Game" for this whole deal. It' just like the 3rd world talking to the G7. They pat the little brown people on the head, and go back to doing what they do best...Ruling.
The logic of slave and master is here clearly, and the slave always thinks the master is listening...even feels empowered briefly, but like I said, look to what really is being exchanged besides words.
Also, Gnosis negates the need of 99.9% of religious functionaries, authorities, codes, laws. The entire Reason D'etre for the "Parliament of World Religions" would largely cease to exist if we shifted from an exoteric to an esoteric focus.
Yes, I'm sure there are "esotericists" there, but the hardcore ones, the one's that really get it, probably not so much.
All this stuff perpetuates the distraction from the REAL.
Reply
Having organized some interfaith (and intrafaith) events in my time, actually getting one another to the point of respect and true understanding, rather than agreement and anyone else "converting" to someone else's viewpoint, has always been the goal, and has been achieved on occasion (sometimes better than others, and some people more poignantly than others).
Not that your critique isn't valid, but I just wonder, does everyone have to be one particular way in order for the world to be a better place?
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I'm saying this because too often people that are subjugagted take a reactive position vis dominant groups to get them to understand their subjgation while they continue to be dominated/ostracized/subjugated/marginalized/ fill in the blank.
Reply
Reply
I'm just not seeing the use of attempting to make people fear me (or anyone else); that seems like a very insecure position to me, when it is fully possible for another to respect me without fearing me. If I go into a situation in which I hope that others end up understanding me as a result of it, rather than going in and hoping they fear me, I've generally had better results; if they still want to fear me afterwards, even if they have understood me, then that's not my problem, but I honestly don't think that's happened very often.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment